Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the interview was fixed on 31.05.2018, it was later postponed to 02.06.2018. It is submitted that the postponement of the interview was purportedly for the purpose of increasing the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score of the fifth respondent as the API score of the fifth respondent was lesser than the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner participated in the Interview conducted by the Selection Committee of the fourth respondent and performed well and established his experience in administration. However, the fifth respondent was selected and appointed as the Principal of the fourth respondent College by the Selection Committee of the third respondent despite lower API score.

8. It is further submitted by the third and fourth respondents that the interview was postponed only for the purpose of completion of verification of API scores of the two applicants i.e., the petitioner and the fifth respondent, by a Competent Senior Professor from the University of Madras. It is further submitted that on the verification of API scores, the petitioner had scored only 583.50 API scores, whereas, the fifth respondent had scored 881 API scores. The third and fourth respondent have further stated that the API scores cannot be increased or decreased at whims and fancies of any person and the calculation of API scores was based on the details and information furnished by the individual candidate with supportive documents and are subject to self assessment and verification by a neutral competent person and the API scores have been calculated as per UGC Guidelines.

v. D.Sarojakumari Vs. R.Helen Thilakom and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 478.

11. The fifth respondent was selected as the Principal in the fourth respondent college by the Selection Committee and preference was given to him over the petitioner. In his counter affidavit, the fifth respondent has reiterated the content of counter affidavit of the third and fourth respondents and submitted that the Selection Committee was constituted as per the UGC Regulation and the selection of the fifth respondent as the Principal of the fourth respondent college was based on the markes obtained by him both in the interview and on the marks awarded for API scores. It is submitted that the fifth respondent had scored 884 points in API scores while the petitioner had scored only 583.5 points in API score and that the process of selection to the post of Principal was only through direct recruitment and not through promotion and therefore, the selection of the fifth respondent was legal based on the performance and the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 10 of 36 service of the fifth respondent. According to the fifth respondent, performance and the service of him are given as follows:-

______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 11 of 36

12. After the counter affidavit was filed by the first, third, fourth and fifth respondents, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. The petitioner in his reply affidavit has stated that as per the UGC Guidelines, for calculation of API scores, the research papers published in journals are divided in two major categories, i.e. (i) Referred Journal, (ii) Non- Referred Journals. It is also submitted that for Referred Category, the Articles / Research Papers should have been published through Thomson Reuters (A journal for indexing and article database) and for Non- Referred Category, the UGC has published the list of journals which are recognized for calculating points for API scoring. It is further submitted that the Impact Factors for calculating points also vary according to the rating and standard of the journals and all the journals do not carry same points. It is submitted that as per Appendix III Table 1 to the UGC Regulation, 2010, the points are to be calculated for API Score as follows:-